Power Sharing Assignment (Revised Long Answers)

25. Distinguish the arrangement of power-sharing in Belgium with that in Sri Lanka.
→ Belgium and Sri Lanka followed contrasting power-sharing models. Belgium embraced
diversity and designed a complex system accommodating linguistic communities. It created
a federal government, community governments, and regional governments to ensure equal
power among Dutch, French, and German speakers. Community autonomy was respected,
reducing conflict. In contrast, Sri Lanka adopted a majoritarian approach, where the
Sinhalese majority dominated. Tamil minorities were excluded from language, education,
and employment opportunities. This led to increasing discontent and eventually civil war.
Belgium’s inclusive model promoted peace and unity, while Sri Lanka’s exclusionary
approach caused unrest. Thus, Belgium’s power-sharing ensured harmony and democratic
stability, unlike Sri Lanka’s majoritarianism, which deepened ethnic divisions and violence.

26. What are the historical, linguistic and geographic reasons behind the nature of power-
sharing in Belgium? How has the Belgian government accounted for these reasons in its
polity?
→ Belgium’s population consists of Dutch speakers in Flanders, French speakers in
Wallonia, and a small German-speaking minority. Historically, power was concentrated in
the French-speaking elite, causing tension. Geographically, the communities are regionally
distributed, which added to the divide. The Belgian government addressed this by
amending the constitution to establish a federal system. It gave autonomy to regional
governments and cultural autonomy to communities. Equal representation in the central
government and cultural councils helped balance interests. Brussels, the capital, was given a
bilingual status to ease tensions. These structural changes respected linguistic diversity,
promoted unity, and prevented conflict by allowing all groups to participate in governance.

27. Explain five merits and demerits of majoritarianism.

→ Majoritarianism emphasizes majority rule, offering certain advantages such as swift
decision-making, policy clarity, and stronger mandates. It ensures the will of the majority is
implemented, promoting governmental stability. However, it also has significant demerits.
It often marginalizes minorities, leading to social unrest and conflict. It may result in
discriminatory laws and neglect of diverse community needs. A classic example is Sri Lanka,
where Sinhala dominance caused Tamil alienation, eventually leading to civil war.
Majoritarianism can suppress pluralism, restrict representation, and threaten the long-term
stability of a democracy. Hence, while efficient, it must be balanced with safeguards for
minority rights to maintain fairness.

28. Trace the circumstances from Sri Lanka's independence leading up to the civil war
between rebel Tamil groups and the Sri Lankan government.
→ Sri Lanka gained independence in 1948. Soon after, the government passed laws favoring
the Sinhalese majority, such as the Sinhala Only Act, which marginalized the Tamil minority.
Tamils faced discrimination in jobs, education, and language rights. Peaceful protests by
Tamils were met with resistance. Frustration grew among Tamil youth, leading to the rise of
militant groups like the LTTE. Their demand for an independent Tamil state escalated the
conflict. The government's military response further deepened hostilities, resulting in a
prolonged civil war that lasted decades. The conflict illustrates the dangers of ignoring
minority rights and the consequences of majoritarianism.

29. What are the moral reasons for power-sharing in a democracy?

→ Moral reasons for power-sharing are rooted in the principles of fairness, justice, and
equal respect for all communities. In a diverse democracy, every group deserves
representation and voice in governance. Power-sharing prevents the domination of one
group over others, respecting the dignity of individuals and communities. It upholds
democratic values such as liberty and equality, helping to build inclusive societies. It fosters
mutual trust and cooperation among communities, creating harmony and unity. Moral
reasoning insists that a true democracy cannot exist without participation of all. Therefore,
beyond practical benefits, power-sharing is ethically necessary to ensure a just and
representative system.

30. Considering prudential and moral reasons for power-sharing, critically comment either
for or against each of these reasons.
→ Prudential and moral reasons both justify power-sharing, each from a different
standpoint. Prudential reasons are pragmatic—they help avoid political instability and
conflict, as diverse groups feel included. Moral reasons are rooted in ethics and democratic
ideals—they ensure justice, dignity, and equality for all citizens. While prudential reasons
are about effective governance, moral reasons emphasize legitimacy and trust. Both are
necessary. Prudence ensures survival of democracy; morality ensures its integrity. Ignoring
either can lead to imbalance. For example, Sri Lanka’s failure to consider either led to civil
unrest. Thus, a democracy should integrate both for sustainable peace and fairness.

31. What are the four forms of power-sharing? Briefly explain each form with relevant
examples.
→ There are four key forms of power-sharing. First, horizontal power-sharing involves the
division of power among different organs of government—legislature, executive, and
judiciary. Each keeps a check on the other, like in India. Second, vertical power-sharing
occurs among different levels of government—central, state, and local. For instance, India’s
federalism divides responsibilities via lists. Third, power may be shared among different
social groups. Belgium has community governments for this purpose, allowing linguistic
and cultural autonomy. Fourth, power-sharing among political parties, interest groups, and
movements allows diverse voices to participate in governance, often seen in coalition
governments in parliamentary systems.

32. Critically analyse each stakeholder with whom power is sought to be shared in modern
democracies.
→ In democracies, power-sharing involves several key stakeholders. Political parties are
fundamental—they represent people’s choices and form governments. Coalition partners
play vital roles in governance, especially in multiparty systems. Pressure groups, like
business associations or labor unions, influence decisions affecting their interests. Minority
communities demand power-sharing to protect identity and rights. Civil society
organizations and NGOs contribute to accountability and participation. The media serves as
a bridge between the public and government. Lastly, the judiciary ensures legal checks on
legislative and executive actions. These stakeholders together ensure balanced, inclusive,
and accountable governance in modern democratic societies.